Navigating the changes to New Zealand Equivalents to … · 2018-04-16 · Overview This publication is designed to give a high-level awareness of recent changes to New Zealand equivalents

Navigating the changes to New Zealand Equivalents to International Financial Reporting Standards

Overview 3

Effective dates of new standards, interpretations and amendments (issued as at 31 Dec 2017)

4

Effective from 1 January 2017 6

Recognition of Deferred Tax Assets for Unrealised Losses (Amendments to NZ IAS 12)

7

Disclosure Initiative (Amendments to NZ IAS 7)

9

Annual Improvements to NZ IFRSs 2014-2016 Cycle 10


NZ IFRS 15 Revenue from Contracts with Customers 13

NZ IFRS 9 (2014) Financial Instruments 18

Applying NZ IFRS 9 Financial Instruments with NZ IFRS 4 Insurance Contracts (Amendments to NZ IFRS 4)

24

Classification and Measurement of Share-based Payment Transactions (Amendments to NZ IFRS 2)

26

Annual Improvements to NZ IFRSs 2014-2016 Cycle 28

NZ IFRIC 22 Foreign Currency Transactions and Advance Consideration

30

Transfers of Investment Property (Amendments to NZ IAS 40)

31

2017 Omnibus Amendments to NZ IFRS 32


NZ IFRS 16 Leases 34

Prepayment Features with Negative Compensation (Amendments to NZ IFRS 9)

39

2017 Omnibus Amendments to NZ IFRS 41

NZ IFRIC 23 – Uncertainty over Income Tax Treatments 42

Long term Interests in Associates and Joint Ventures (Amendments to NZ IAS 28)

44


NZ IFRS 17 Insurance Contracts 46

No effective date 50Sale or Contribution of Assets between an Investor and its Associate or Joint Venture (Amendments to NZ IFRS 10 and NZ IAS 28)

51

Practice Statement 2 – Making material judgements 53

Contents

'This publication includes NZ IFRS 17 - the new Insurance Contracts Standard.'

Important disclaimer: This document has been developed as an information resource. It is intended as a guide only and the application of its contents to specific situations will depend on the particular circumstances involved. While every care has been taken in its presentation, personnel who use this document to assist in evaluating compliance with New Zealand Equivalents to International Financial Reporting Standards should have sufficient training and experience to do so. No person should act specifically on the basis of the material contained herein without considering and taking professional advice. Neither Grant Thornton International Ltd, nor any of its member firms or their partners or employees, accept any responsibility for any errors it might contain, whether caused by negligence or otherwise, or any loss, howsoever caused, incurred by any person as a result of utilising or otherwise placing any reliance upon this document.

Overview

This publication is designed to give a high-level awareness of recent changes to New Zealand equivalents to International Financial Reporting Standards (NZ IFRS) that will affect future financial reporting for for-profit entities. It covers both new standards and interpretations that have been issued and amendments made to existing ones.

What is new in 2018?This publication covers 31 March 2018 financial year ends and details the NZ IFRSs that have been approved and published by the New Zealand Accounting Standards Board (NZASB) of the External Reporting Board (XRB) between 1 December 2015 and 31 December 2017.

Effective dates of the new standards Page 4 allows you identify the changes that will affect you. It lists all the changes covered in this publication, and whether early application is permitted.

Where a change is not yet mandatorily effective for a particular year end, it may still be possible for an entity to adopt it early, dependent upon any special directive provided by the XRB.

Where a change has been made but an entity is yet to apply it, certain disclosures are required to be made under NZ IAS 8

Accounting Policies, Changes in Accounting Estimates and Errors. Disclosures required include the fact that the new or amended Standard or Interpretation is issued, but has not yet been applied, and known or reasonably estimable information relevant to assessing its possible impact of the financial statements in the period of initial application.

Identifying the commercial significance of the changesFor each change we have included a box on its commercial implications. These sections focus on the following questions:

• how many entities will be affected?

• what will be the impact on affected entities?

Grant Thornton New Zealand LimitedMarch 2018

3 Navigating the changes to New Zealand IFRS

Effective dates of new standards, interpretations and amendments (issued as at 31 Dec 2017)

Standard Title of standard or interpretation

Effective for accounting periods beginning on or after Page For 31 March year ends

NZ IAS 12 Recognition of Deferred Tax Assets for Unrealised Losses (Amendments to NZ IAS 12)

1 January 2017 7 Effective for the first time for balance dates on or after 31 March 2018

NZ IAS 7 Disclosure Initiative (Amendments to NZ IAS 7) 1 January 2017 9 Effective for the first time for balance dates on or after 31 March 2018

Various Annual Improvements to IFRSs 2014–2016 Cycle 1 January 2017 10 Effective for the first time for balance dates on or after 31 March 2018

NZ IFRS 15 Revenue from Contracts with Customers 1 January 2018 13 Not yet effective

(Effective for accounting periods beginning on or after 1 January 2018)

NZ IFRS 9 (2014) Financial Instruments 1 January 2018 18 Not yet effective


NZ IFRS 4 Applying NZ IFRS 9 Financial Instruments with NZ IFRS 4 Insurance Contracts (Amendments to NZ IFRS 4)

1 January 2018 24 Not yet effective


NZ IFRS 2 Classification and Measurement of Share-based payment Transactions (Amendments to NZ IFRS 2)



Various Annual Improvements to NZ IFRSs 2014–2016 Cycle 1 January 2018 28 Not yet effective



Standard Title of standard or interpretation

Effective for accounting periods beginning on or after Page For 31 March year ends

NZ IFRIC 22 Foreign Currency Translation and Advance Consideration 1 January 2018 30 Not yet effective


NZ IAS 40 Transfers of Investment Property (Amendments to NZ IAS 40)



Various 2017 Omnibus Amendments to NZ IFRS 1 January 2018 32 Not yet effective


NZ IFRS 16 Leases 1 January 2019 34 Not yet effective


NZ IFRS 9 Prepayment Features with Negative Compensation (Amendments to NZ IFRS 9)



NZ IFRIC 23 Uncertainty over Income Tax Payments 1 January 2019 42 Not yet effective


NZ IAS 28 Long-term Interests In Associates and Joint Ventures (Amendments to NZ IAS 28)



NZ IFRS 17 Insurance Contracts 1 January 2021 46 Not yet effective


NZ IFRS 10 and NZ IAS 28

Sale or Contribution of Assets between an Investor and its Associate or Joint Venture (Amendments to IFRS 10 and NZ IAS 28)

No effective date 51 No effective date as deferred indefinitely

Practice Statement 2 Making Material Judgements No effective date 53 No effective date as non-mandatory guidance

Navigating the changes to New Zealand IFRS 5

Effective from 1 January 2017

The following amendments are effective for accounting periods beginning on or after 1 January 2017. The amendments are:

• Recognition of Deferred Tax Assets for Unrealised Losses (Amendments to NZ IAS 12)

• Disclosure Initiative (Amendments to NZ IAS 7) • Annual Improvements to NZ IFRSs 2014-2016 Cycle


Recognition of Deferred Tax Assets for Unrealised Losses (Amendments to NZ IAS 12)

Matters addressed by the amendments

Topic Issue Clarification

Existence of a deductible temporary difference

Do decreases in the carrying amount of a fixed-rate debt instrument for which the principal is paid on maturity always gives rise to a deductible temporary difference if the debt instrument is measured at fair value and if its tax base remains at cost?

The existence of a deductible temporary difference depends solely on a comparison of the carrying amount of an asset and its tax base at the end of the reporting period, and is not affected by possible future changes in the carrying amount. Consequently, decreases below the cost in the carrying amount of a fixed-rate debt instrument measured at fair value for which the tax base remains at cost give rise to a deductible temporary difference.

Recovering an asset for more than its carrying amount

Should an entity assume that it will recover an asset for more than its carrying amount when estimating probable future taxable profit against which deductible temporary differences are assessed for utilisation if such recovery is probable (relevant when taxable profit from other sources is insufficient for the utilisation of the deductible temporary differences related to debt instruments measured at fair value)?

The estimate of probable future taxable profit may include the recovery of some of an entity’s assets for more than their carrying amount if there is sufficient evidence that it is probable that the entity will achieve this.

In January 2015, the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) made narrow-scope amendments to IAS 12 Income Taxes entitled Recognition of Deferred Tax Assets for Unrealised Losses (Amendments to IAS 12). The focus of the amendments is to clarify how to account for deferred tax assets related to debt instruments measured at fair value, particularly where changes in the market interest rate decrease the fair value of a debt instrument below cost.

The IFRS Interpretations Committee (IFRIC) was originally asked to clarify a number of issues surrounding the recognition of deferred

tax assets related to debt instruments measured at fair value. The IFRIC referred the issue to the IASB, leading to an Exposure Draft being issued in August 2015 and now the final amendments which have been approved and taken into NZ IFRS.

Matters addressedThe amendments add guidance to the standard in the following areas where diversity in practice previously existed:


Matters addressed by the amendments

Commercial significance

Topic Issue Clarification

Probable future taxable profit against which deductible temporary differences are assessed for utilisation

When an entity assesses whether it can utilise a deductible temporary difference against probable future taxable profit, does that probable future taxable profit include the effects of reversing deductible temporary differences?

Deductible temporary differences are utilised by deduction against taxable profit, excluding deductions arising from reversal of those deductible temporary differences. Consequently, taxable profit used for assessing the utilisation of deductible temporary differences is different from taxable profit on which income taxes are payable. If those deductions were not excluded, then they would be counted twice.

Combined versus separate assessment

Should an entity assess whether a deferred tax asset is recognised for each deductible temporary difference separately, or in combination with other deductible temporary differences?

The amendments clarify that an entity should consider whether tax law restricts the sources of taxable profits against which it may make deductions on the reversal of the deductible temporary difference. If tax law imposes no such restrictions, an entity assesses a deductible temporary difference in combination with all of its other deductible temporary differences.

Some

Low

Number of entities affected

Impact on affected entities

The amendments will impact entities with debt instruments measured at fair value.

These amendments are narrow in scope and uncontroversial in nature.

'The focus of the amendments is to clarify how to account for deferred tax assets related to debt instruments measured at fair value, particularly where changes in the market interest rate decrease the fair value of a debt instrument below cost.'


Disclosure Initiative (Amendments to NZ IAS 7)

The NZASB has published narrow scope amendments to NZ IAS 7 Statement of Cash Flows, entitled Disclosure Initiative (Amendments to NZ IAS 7). The amendments respond to requests from investors for improved disclosures about an entity’s financing activities. As their name suggests, the amendments form another part of the IASB’s Disclosure Initiative.

The amendments, which have been approved and taken in to NZ IFRS, are designed to improve the quality of information provided to users of financial statements about changes in an entity’s debt and related cash flows (and non-cash changes). The amendments:

• require an entity to provide disclosures that enable users to evaluate changes in liabilities arising from financing activities. An entity applies its judgement when determining the exact form and content of the disclosures needed to satisfy this requirement.

• suggest a number of specific disclosures that may be necessary in order to satisfy the above requirement, including:

− changes in liabilities arising from financing activities caused by changes in financing cash flows, foreign exchange rates or fair values, or obtaining or losing control of subsidiaries or other businesses

− a reconciliation of the opening and closing balances of liabilities arising from financing activities in the statement of financial position including those changes identified immediately above.


Most

Low



The amendments will impact all entities in the preparation of their financial statements.

These amendments are in the main clarifications which should reduce rather than add to the burden of financial statement preparation. They aim to improve the disclosures about an entity’s financing activities and changes in related liabilities.


Annual Improvements to NZ IFRSs 2014-2016 Cycle

The Annual Improvements to IFRSs 2014- 2016 Cycle is a collection of amendments to IFRSs resulting from issues that were discussed by the IASB during the project cycle for making annual improvements that began in 2014 and which were included in an Exposure Draft published in November 2015.

The IASB uses the process for making non-urgent, but necessary, minor amendments that will not be included as part of any other project and the New Zealand Accounting Standards Board

(NZASB) has formed a similar view, by taking the IASB’s proposed changes and putting them into their standards. By presenting the amendments in a single document rather than as a series of piecemeal changes, the IASB and the NZASB aims to ease the burden of change for all concerned. The issue addressed with an effective date in 2017, is set out in the table that follows.

Improvements to IFRSs 2014-2016

Standard affected Subject Summary of amendment

NZ IFRS 12 Disclosure of Interests in Other Entities

Clarification of the scope of the standard

Clarifies the scope of NZ IFRS 12 by specifying that its disclosure requirements (except for those in NZ IFRS 12.B17) apply to an entity’s interests irrespective of whether they are classified (or included in a disposal group that is classified) as held for sale or as discontinued operations in accordance with NZ IFRS 5.


The amendment to NZ IFRS 12 is effective for annual periods beginning on or after 1 January 2017. The amendment is to be applied retrospectively.




Few

Low

The amendment applies to entities with interests classified as held for sale, or included in a disposal group that is classified as held for sale or classified as a discontinued operation in accordance with NZ IFRS 5.

The NZASB’s Annual Improvements process addresses non-urgent, but necessary minor amendments to NZ IFRSs. By their nature then, their commercial significance can be expected to be low and overall the changes are largely uncontroversial.



The following standards, interpretation and amendments are effective for accounting periods beginning on or after 1 January 2018. It may be possible to apply these changes early.

The standards, interpretation and amendments are:

• NZ IFRS 15 Revenue from Contracts with Customers• NZ IFRS 9 (2014) Financial Instruments• Applying NZ IFRS 9 Financial Instruments with NZ IFRS 4 Insurance

Contracts (Amendments to NZ IFRS 4)• Classification and Measurement of Share-based Payment

Transactions (Amendments to NZ IFRS 2)• Annual Improvements to NZ IFRSs 2014-2016 Cycle• NZ IFRIC 22 Foreign Currency Translation and Advance

Consideration• Transfers of Investment Property (Amendments to NZ IAS 40)• 2017 Omnibus Amendments to NZ IFRS


NZ IFRS 15 Revenue from Contracts with Customers

BackgroundNZ IFRS 15 Revenue from Contracts with Customers is the product of a major joint project between the IASB and the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) in the United States. The previous requirements of IFRS and US GAAP were not harmonised and often resulted in different accounting treatments for economically significant transactions. In response, the Boards have developed new, converged requirements for the recognition of revenue under both IFRS and US GAAP and the NZASB has endorsed these without any changes for New Zealand. Subsequently, the NZASB has also approved some clarifications to NZ IFRS 15 and these are noted below.

The standard:

• replaces NZ IAS 18 Revenue, NZ IAS 11 Construction Contracts and some revenue-related Interpretations

• establishes a new control-based revenue recognition model

• changes the basis for deciding whether revenue is recognised at a point in time or over time

• provides new and more detailed guidance on specific topics

• expands and improves disclosures about revenue.

NZ IFRS 15 at a glance

Features Key points

Who is affected? • all entities that enter into contracts with customers with few exceptions.

What is the impact? • entities affected will need to reassess their revenue recognition policies and may need to revise them;

• the timing and amount of revenue recognised may not change for simple contracts for a single deliverable but most complex arrangements will be affected to some extent;

• NZ IFRS 15 requires more and different disclosures.

When are the changes effective? • annual periods beginning on or after 1 January 2018;

• early application is permitted.


NZ IFRS 15 is based on a core principle that requires an entity to recognise revenue:

• in a manner that depicts the transfer of goods or services to customers

• at an amount that reflects the consideration the entity expects to be entitled to in exchange for those goods or services.

A “customer” is defined as “a party that has contracted with an entity to obtain goods or services that are an output of the entity’s ordinary activities.”

Applying this core principle involves following a five step model depicted above. The following table expands on the factors to consider in applying this new five step model.

A five step model for revenue recognition

There is a five step model for revenue recognition which is detailed below:

Determine the transaction price

Identify the separate performance obligations

Identify the contract(s) with the customer

Allocate the transaction price

Recognise revenue when or as an entity satisfies performance obligations

54321


Step Principal considerations Other factors to consider

1 Identify the contract(s) with a customer

The first step in NZ IFRS 15 is to identify the “contract,” which NZ IFRS 15 defines as “an agreement between two or more parties that creates enforceable rights and obligations.” A contract can be written, oral, or implied by an entity’s customary business practices.

In addition the general NZ IFRS 15 model applies only when or if:

• the contract has commercial substance

• the parties have approved the contract

• the entity can identify:

− each party’s rights

− the payment terms for the goods and services to be transferred; and

• it is probable the entity will collect the consideration.

If a customer contract does not meet these criteria, revenue is recognised only when either:

• the entity’s performance is complete and substantially all of the consideration in the arrangement has been collected and is non-refundable; or

• the contract has been terminated and the consideration received is non-refundable.

For purposes of NZ IFRS 15, a contract does not exist if each party has an enforceable right to terminate a wholly unperformed contract without compensating the other party.

Guidance is also given on:

• combining contracts

• contract modifications.

2 Identify the separate performance obligations in the contract

Having identified a contract, the entity next identifies the performance obligations within that contract. A performance obligation is a promise in a contract with a customer to transfer either (1) a good or service, or a bundle of goods or services that is “distinct”; or (2) a series of distinct goods or services that are substantially the same and meet certain criteria.

Performance obligations are normally specified in the contract but could also include promises implied by an entity’s customary business practices, published policies or specific statements that create a valid customer expectation that goods or services will be transferred under the contract.

Guidance is given on the criteria that need to be met in order to determine whether a promised good or service is distinct.

3 Determine the transaction price

Under NZ IFRS 15, the “transaction price” is defined as the amount of consideration an entity expects to be entitled to in exchange for the goods or services promised under a contract, excluding any amounts collected on behalf of third parties (for example, sales taxes).

The transaction price is not adjusted for effects of the customer’s credit risk, but is adjusted if the entity (eg based on its customary business practices) has created a valid expectation that it will enforce its rights for only a portion of the contract price.

An entity must consider the effects of all the following factors when determining the transaction price:

• variable consideration;

• the constraint on variable consideration;

• time value of money;

• non-cash consideration; and

• consideration payable to the customer.

4 Allocate the transaction price to the performance obligations

Under NZ IFRS 15, an entity allocates a contract’s transaction price to each separate performance obligation within that contract on a relative stand-alone selling price basis at contract inception. NZ IFRS 15 defines a stand-alone selling price as “the price at which an entity would sell a promised good or service separately to a customer.”

NZ IFRS 15 suggests, but does not require, the following three methods as suitable for estimating the stand-alone selling price:

• adjusted market assessment approach;

• expected cost plus margin approach; or the

• residual approach.


Step Principal considerations Other factors to consider

5 Recognise revenue when or as an entity satisfies performance obligations

Under NZ IFRS 15, an entity recognises revenue when or as it transfers promised goods or services to a customer. A “transfer” occurs when the customer obtains control of the good or service.

A customer obtains control of an asset (good or service) when it can direct the use of and obtain substantially all the remaining benefits from it. Control includes the ability to prevent other entities from directing the use of and obtaining the benefits from an asset. The benefits of an asset are the potential cash flows that can be obtained directly or indirectly from the asset in many ways.

A key part of the model is the concept that for some performance obligations control is transferred over time while for others control transfers at a point in time. Guidance is given in the Standard to help entities decide which is appropriate.

Other matters In addition to the items discussed above in relation to the five step model, NZ IFRS 15 contains guidance on a number of other matters including:

• contract costs

• warranties

• licensing

• rights of return and repurchase obligations.

Effective date and transition NZ IFRS 15 is effective for annual reporting periods beginning on or after 1 January 2018. Early adoption is permitted.

Entities are required to apply the new revenue Standard either:

• retrospectively to each prior period presented, subject to some practical expedients, or

• retrospectively, with the cumulative effect of initial application recognised in the current period.

An entity that chooses to restate only the current period is required to provide the following additional disclosures in the initial year of adoption:

• the current year impact of applying the new revenue Standard by financial statement line item

• an explanation of the reasons behind the significant impacts.

'In April 2016, the IASB published 'Clarifications to IFRS 15 Revenue from Contracts with Customers' making several targeted changes to IFRS 15.'





Most

High

NZ IFRS 15 impacts all entities that enter into contracts with customers with few exceptions.

The impact on the top line will very much depend on each entity’s specific customer contracts and how the much less detailed existing standards have been applied. For some it will be a significant shift while others may see only minor changes. Entities are advised to start their assessment of NZ IFRS 15 now in order to determine the impact on their financial statements.

Clarifications Following discussions with the Revenue Transition Resource Group (TRG), in April 2016, the IASB published Clarifications to IFRS 15 Revenue from Contracts with Customers (the ‘Amendments’) making several targeted changes to IFRS 15. The TRG was formed by both the FASB and the IASB Boards after issuing the new standards in 2014 and is tasked with supporting the implementation of IFRS 15. While a total of five topics discussed by the TRG indicated the possible need for clarification, the IASB has elected to address just 3 of these, striking a balance between being responsive to issues raised while minimising disruption to the implementation process. The Amendments also introduce two practical expedients available for use by entities implementing the new standard.

The Amendments clarified the application of NZ IFRS 15 in three specific areas to reduce the amount of diversity and practice that might otherwise result from differing views on how to implement the requirements of the new standard. They will help companies:

• identify performance obligations (by clarifying how to apply the concept of ‘distinct’);

• determine whether a company is a principal or an agent in a transaction (by clarifying how to apply the control principle); and

• determine whether a license transfers to a customer at a point in time or over time (by clarifying when a company’s activities significantly affect the intellectual property to which the customer has rights).

The amendments also create two additional practical expedients available for use when implementing NZ IFRS 15:

• for contracts that have been modified before the beginning of the earliest period presented, the Amendments allow companies to use hindsight when identifying the performance obligations, determining the transaction price, and allocating the transaction price to the satisfied and unsatisfied performance obligations; and

• companies applying the full retrospective method are permitted to ignore contracts already complete at the beginning of the earliest period presented.

The Amendments are effective for annual periods beginning on or after 1 January 2018 (the effective date of the new Standard). Earlier application is permitted.


NZ IFRS 9 (2014) Financial Instruments

The IASB began its overhaul of the accounting for financial instruments in the summer of 2009 in response to the widespread criticism of IAS 39 and its alleged role in contributing to the financial crisis of 2007/8. Due to the complexity of the issues involved, the project was completed in a number of stages as follows, all of which were approved by the NZASB:

• November 2009: the classification and measurement of financial assets

• October 2010: requirements for classifying and measuring financial liabilities and derecognising financial assets and financial liabilities were added

• November 2013: requirements on hedge accounting were introduced

• July 2014: the IASB issued IFRS 9 (2014) adding requirements on impairment and amending the Standard’s classification and measurement requirements.

Following the publication of NZ IFRS 9 (2014) the Standard as a whole is now complete. The different parts of the Standard are discussed in greater detail below.

Classification and measurement of financial assets The classification and measurement of financial assets was one of the areas of IAS 39 that received the most criticism during the financial crisis. In publishing the original version of IFRS 9, the IASB therefore made a conscious effort to reduce the complexity in accounting for financial assets by just having two categories (fair value and amortised cost). However following comments that having just two categories created too sharp a dividing line and failed to reflect the way many businesses manage their financial assets, an additional category was added in July 2014 when IFRS 9 (2014) was published.

Classification Under NZ IFRS 9 each financial asset is classified into one of three main classification categories as shown below namely:

• amortised cost

• fair value through other comprehensive income (FVTOCI)

• fair value through profit or loss (FVTPL).

FVTPL Applies to other financial assets that do not meet the conditions for amortised cost or FVTOCI (including derivatives and equity investments)

Amortised cost Applies to debt assets for which: (a) contractual cash flows are solely principal and interest (b) business model is to hold collect cash flows

FVTOCI Applies to debt assets for which: (a) contractual cash flows are solely principal and interest (b) business model is to hold collect cash flows and sell

3 main categories

fair value option for accounting mismatches

fair value option for accounting mismatches

FVTOCI option for some equity investments


The classification is determined by both:

1 the entity’s business model for managing the financial asset (‘business model test’)

2 the contractual cash flow characteristics of the financial asset (‘cash flow characteristics test’).

The diagram above summarises the three main categories and how the business model and cash flow characteristics determine the applicable category.

In addition, NZ IFRS 9 contains an option which allows an entity to designate a financial asset at fair value through profit or loss and an additional option to classify investments in equity instruments in a special ‘equity – FVTOCI’ category.

The business model test NZ IFRS 9 uses the term ‘business model’ in terms of how financial assets are managed and the extent to which cash flows will result from collecting contractual cash flows, selling financial assets or both. The Standard positively defines two such ‘business models’:

• a business model whose objective is to hold the financial asset in order to collect contractual cash flows (‘hold to collect’)

• a business model in which assets are managed to achieve a particular objective by both collecting contractual cash flows and selling financial assets (‘hold to collect and sell’).

Business models other than the two above result in classification of financial assets at fair value through profit or loss.

The cash flow characteristics test The second condition for classification in the amortised cost classification or FVTOCI category can be labelled the ‘solely payments of principal and interest’ (SPPI) test. The requirement is that the contractual terms of the financial asset give rise on specified dates to cash flows that are solely payments of principal and interest on the principal amount outstanding.

For the purpose of applying this test, ‘principal’ is the fair value of the financial asset at initial recognition. ‘Interest’ consists of consideration for:

• the time value of money

• the credit risk associated with the principal amount outstanding during a particular period of time

• other basic lending risks and costs

• a profit margin.

Contractual cash flows that are SPPI are consistent with a basic lending arrangement. Contractual terms that introduce exposures to risks or volatility in the contractual cash flows that are unrelated to a basic lending arrangement however, such as exposure to changes in equity prices or commodity prices, fail the SPPI test. Similarly contracts that increase leverage fail the test as they increase the variability of the contractual cash flows with the result that they do not have the economic characteristics of interest.

The diagram on the following page shows the NZ IFRS 9 business model and how the cash flow characteristics test interact in determining the classification of financial assets.

NZ IFRS 9 introduces:• a new approach for

financial asset clarification• a more forward-looking

expected loss impairment model

• major new requirements on hedge accounting.


Summary of NZ IFRS 9’s classification model for financial assets

Classification and measurement of financial liabilities Most of NZ IAS 39’s requirements have been carried forward unchanged to NZ IFRS 9. Changes were however made to address issues related to own credit risk where an entity takes the option to measure financial liabilities at fair value.

Are cash flows solely payments of principal and interest?

Fair Value through Profit or Loss

Is business model hold to collect?

Amortised cost

Is business model hold to collect and sell?

Fair Value through Other Comprehensive Income*

Fair Value through Profit or Loss

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

No

No*entities can elect to present fair value changes in certain equity investments in Other Comprehensive Income

Majority of requirements retained Under NZ IAS 39 most liabilities are measured at amortised cost or bifurcated into a host instrument measured at amortised cost, and an embedded derivative, measured at fair value.

Liabilities that are held for trading (including all derivative liabilities) are measured at fair value. These requirements have been retained.

Own credit risk The requirements related to the fair value option for financial liabilities have however been changed to address own credit risk. Where an entity chooses to measure its own debt at fair value, NZ IFRS 9 now requires the amount of the change in fair value due to changes in the entity’s own credit risk to be presented in other comprehensive income. This change addresses the counterintuitive way in which a company in financial trouble was previously able to recognise a gain based on its theoretical ability to buy back its own debt at a reduced cost.

The only exception to the new requirement is where the effects of changes in the liability’s credit risk would create or enlarge an accounting mismatch in profit or loss, in which case all gains or losses on that liability are to be presented in profit or loss.

Elimination of the exception from fair value measurement for certain derivative liabilities NZ IFRS 9 now eliminates the exception from fair value measurement for derivative liabilities that are linked to and must be settled by delivery of an unquoted equity instrument.

Under NZ IAS 39, if those derivatives were not reliably measurable, they were required to be measured at cost. NZ IFRS 9 requires them to be measured at fair value.


Derecognition of financial assets and financial liabilities The requirements in NZ IAS 39 related to the derecognition of financial assets and financial liabilities were incorporated unchanged into NZ IFRS 9.

The IASB had originally envisaged making changes to the derecognition requirements of IAS 39 but then subsequently concluded that IAS 39’s requirements in this area had performed reasonably well during the financial crisis. As a consequence of this, NZ IAS 39’s derecognition requirements have therefore been incorporated into NZ IFRS 9 unchanged, while new disclosure requirements were instead issued by the NZASB as an amendment to NZ IFRS 7 Financial Instruments: Disclosures.

Hedge accounting NZ IAS 39’s hedge accounting requirements had been heavily criticised for containing complex rules which either made it impossible for entities to use hedge accounting or, in some cases, simply put them off doing so. As an example, hedge effectiveness was judged on both a prospective and retrospective basis, with a “bright-line” quantitative range of 80% to 125% being used to assess retrospective effectives on a quantitative basis. Anything outside this range resulted in the discontinuance of hedge accounting, leading to a sharp increase in volatility in the statements of profit or loss.

In part this complexity was a reflection of the fact that the hedge accounting requirements were an exception to NZ IAS 39’s normal requirements. There was however also a perception that hedge accounting did not properly reflect entities’ actual risk management activities, thereby reducing the usefulness of their financial statements. NZ IFRS 9’s new requirements look to rectify some of these problems, aligning hedge accounting more closely with entities’ risk management activities by:

• increasing the eligibility of both hedged items and hedging instruments

• introducing a more principles-based approach to assessing hedge effectiveness.

As a result, the new requirements should serve to reduce profit or loss volatility. The increased flexibility of the new requirements are however partly offset by entities being prohibited from voluntarily discontinuing hedge accounting and also by enhanced disclosure requirements. The simplifications table noted above gives a highly summarised view of the new hedging requirements.

Simplifications compared to NZ IAS 39

Features Key points

Objective of the standard • to better align hedging from an accounting point of view with entities’ underlying risk management activities

Similarities with NZ IAS 39 • hedge accounting remains an optional choice

• the three types of hedge accounting (fair value hedges, cash flow hedges and hedges of a net investment) remain;formal designation and documentation of hedge accounting relationships is required

• ineffectiveness needs to be measured and included in profit or loss

• hedge accounting cannot be applied retrospectively

The major changes • increased eligibility of hedged items

• increased eligibility of hedging instruments and reduced volatility

• revised criteria for hedge accounting qualification and for measuring hedge ineffectiveness

• a new concept of rebalancing hedging relationships

• new requirements restricting the discontinuance of hedge accounting


Impairment NZ IFRS 9 (2014) contains the Standard’s requirements on impairment, including the recognition of expected credit losses. NZ IAS 39’s impairment requirements had been criticised for being overly complicated and resulting in impairment being recognised at too late a stage. NZ IFRS 9 (2014) addresses these criticisms by applying the same impairment model to all financial instruments that are subject to impairment accounting and by using more forward-looking information. In applying this more forward-looking approach, a distinction is made between:

• financial instruments that have not deteriorated significantly in credit quality since initial recognition or that have low credit risk

• financial instruments that have deteriorated significantly in credit quality since initial recognition and whose credit risk is not low.

‘12-month expected credit losses’ are recognised for the first category while ‘lifetime expected credit losses’ are recognised for the second category. There is also a third step to the model in the sense that for assets which actually become credit-impaired after initial recognition, interest is calculated on the asset’s amortised cost (i.e. the amount net of the loss allowance) as opposed to its gross carrying amount

Expected credit losses

Deterioration in credit quality

Stage 1 - Performing

• financial instruments that have not deteriorated significantly in credit quality since initial recognition or that have low credit risk at the reporting date

• 12-month expected credit losses are recognised

• interest revenue is calculated on the gross carrying amount of the asset.

Stage 2 - Underperforming

• financial instruments that have deteriorated significantly in credit quality since initial recognition (unless they have low credit risk at the reporting date) but that do not have objective evidence of a credit loss event

• lifetime expected credit losses are recognised

• interest revenue is still calculated on the asset’s gross carrying amount.

Stage 3 - Non-performing

• financial assets that have objective evidence of impairment at the reporting date

• lifetime expected credit losses are recognised

• interest revenue is calculated on the net carrying amount (ie reduced for expected credit losses).

Credit risk > lowCredit risk = low

'Extensive transition provisions have been included due to the complexity of the material and the phased way in which the project has been completed.'


Effective date and transition disclosures NZ IFRS 9 (2014) introduces a new mandatory effective date for the Standard of accounting periods beginning on or after 1 January 2018.

Extensive transition provisions have been included due to the complexity of the material and the phased way in which the project has been completed.

Advantages and disadvantages of early adoption of NZ IFRS 9

Advantages

• improved ability to align accounting with the reporting entity’s business model for managing financial assets

• gives a (one-off) opportunity to reclassify financial assets on initial adoption (assuming all the criteria are met)

• only one set of impairment rules needs to be considered, with no separate impairment assessment (or losses) for investment in equity instruments

• simplified accounting for and valuation of financial instruments containing embedded derivatives in asset host contracts

• enables hedge accounting to be aligned more closely with entities’ risk management activities

• avoids counter-intuitive results arising from changes in own credit risks where the option to measure financial liabilities at fair value has been taken.

Disadvantages

• need to re-evaluate the classification of all instruments within the scope of NZ IAS 39, with consequent implications for system changes

• restricted ability to reclassify financial instruments on an ongoing basis

• system changes will need to be made in order to generate the information necessary to implement the Standard’s three-stage impairment model

• inability to voluntarily discontinue hedge accounting

• complicated transition provisions as a result of the phased completion of the project.


Most

High



Because the definition of a financial instrument is so wide, most companies can expect to be affected. Even companies with relatively simple debtors and creditors should consider the changes. In addition, the greater alignment of NZ IFRS 9’s hedge accounting requirements with entities risk management practices may encourage entities who engage in economic hedging to also apply hedge accounting.

The new Standard, with its reduced number of measurement categories, should help to reduce the complexity in accounting for financial instruments. In the short-term however, it may lead to far reaching changes, with companies needing to re-evaluate the classification of all instruments within the scope of NZ IAS 39.

In addition to the impact on companies’ financial position and reported results, many businesses will need to collect and analyse additional data and implement changes to systems in order to implement the new requirements on impairment.


Applying NZ IFRS 9 Financial Instruments with NZ IFRS 4 Insurance Contracts (Amendments to NZ IFRS 4)

In September 2016, the IASB published Applying IFRS 9 Financial Instruments with IFRS 4 Insurance Contracts which makes narrow scope amendments to IFRS 4 Insurance Contracts. The IASB issued the amendments to address the temporary accounting consequences of the different effective dates of IFRS 9 ‘Financial Instruments’ and the anticipated new insurance contracts Standard. The new insurance contracts standard is yet to be finalised and will have an effective date no earlier than 2020. This means its mandatory effective date will be after the 2018 effective date of NZ IFRS 9.

As entities that issue insurance contracts will be affected by both NZ IFRS 9 and the new insurance contracts standard, there was considerable concern over the practical challenges of implementing these two significant accounting changes on different dates. Further concerns were raised over the potential for increased volatility in profit or loss if NZ IFRS 9’s new requirements for financial instruments come into force before the new insurance accounting rules.

To address these concerns while still fulfilling the needs of users of financial statements, the IASB responded by amending IFRS 4. Consequently, the NZASB has endorsed these changes and has taken them in to NZ IFRS. The amendments introduce the:

• overlay approach – an option for all entities that issue insurance contracts to adjust profit or loss for eligible financial assets by removing any additional accounting volatility that may arise as a result of NZ IFRS 9

• a temporary exemption – an optional temporary exemption from applying NZ IFRS 9 for entities whose activities are predominantly connected with insurance. These entities will be permitted to continue to apply the existing financial instrument requirements of NZ IAS 39.

Overlay approach The overlay approach aims to remove from profit or loss any additional volatility that may arise if NZ IFRS 9 is applied together with NZ IFRS 4. All entities would be permitted to apply it but only to certain assets (see below). Furthermore, the approach must be chosen on the initial adoption of NZ IFRS 9.

Entities applying the overlay approach are required to apply NZ IFRS 9 from its 1 January 2018 effective date. However they are permitted to reclassify from profit or loss to other comprehensive income an amount equal to the difference between:

• the amount reported in profit or loss when NZ IFRS 9 is applied to the qualifying financial assets (see below)

• the amount that would have been reported in profit or loss if NZ IAS 39 were applied to those assets.

The amendments require the reclassification to be shown as a separate line item on the face of the statement of both profit or loss and other comprehensive income, with additional disclosures being given in order to enable users to understand it.

Only financial assets that meet both of the following criteria would qualify for the overlay approach:

• the financial assets are measured at fair value through profit or loss when applying NZ IFRS 9 but would not have been so measured in their entirety when applying NZ IAS 39

• the financial assets are designated by the entity as relating to insurance activities for the purposes of the overlay approach.


Temporary exemption Temporary exemption is an option for entities whose activities are predominantly connected with insurance to defer the application of NZ IFRS 9 until the earlier of:

• the application of the new insurance contracts standard, or

• 1 January 2021.

If an entity elects to use this temporary exemption, it will continue to apply NZ IAS 39 during this period and will be required to provide some key disclosures to assist users of financial statements to make comparisons with entities applying NZ IFRS 9.

Entities are eligible for this deferral approach only if they have activities that are predominantly connected with insurance when considering their activities as a whole. This should be considered at the reporting entity level and they must not have previously applied NZ IFRS 9.

As eligibility is assessed at a reporting entity level, a separate assessment should be made for separate financial statements and consolidated groups. It is therefore possible for a group still to be eligible for the exemption even if there is a non-qualifying subsidiary (for its individual financial statements) within the group, or vice versa.

Predominance should be assessed by comparing the amount of an entity’s insurance contract liabilities with the total amount of its liabilities.

Unlike the overlay approach, the temporary exemption will be applied to all, rather than some, financial assets of the limited population of entities that qualify for and elect to apply this approach.

Effective date The amendments are effective as follows:

• the overlay approach is applied when entities first apply NZ IFRS 9

• a temporary exemption from NZ IFRS 9 is applied for accounting periods on or after 1 January 2018.


Some Number of entities affected


The amendments will only impact entities that issue insurance contracts, and will therefore be affected by both NZ IFRS 9 and the new insurance contracts standard.

These amendments will provide relief to considerable concern raised over the practical challenges of adopting two significant standards on different dates.

High

'The NZASB issued the amendments to address the temporary accounting consequences of the different effective dates of NZ IFRS 9 Financial Instruments and the new insurance contracts Standard, NZ IFRS 17.'


Classification and Measurement of Share-based Payment Transactions (Amendments to NZ IFRS 2)

The Standard discussed below is effective for accounting periods beginning on or after 1 January 2018.

In April 2016 the IASB published Classification and Measurement of Share-based Payment Transactions (Amendments to IFRS 2). The NZASB has endorsed the amendments and taken them into NZ IFRS. We describe the three changes made by the amendments in more detail below.

Effects of vesting conditions on the measurement of a cash-settled share-based payment Prior to the publication of these amendments, NZ IFRS did not specifically address the impact of vesting and non-vesting conditions on the measurement of the fair value of the liability incurred in a cash-settled share-based payment transaction. The amendments address this lack of guidance by clarifying that these conditions should be accounted for consistently with equity-settled share-based payments in NZ IFRS 2.

This means that the fair value of cash-settled awards is measured ignoring service and non-market performance conditions, but taking into account market and non-vesting conditions. This applies when estimating the fair value of the cash-settled share-based payment granted and when re-measuring the fair value at the end of each reporting period and at the date of settlement. The cumulative expense recognised is adjusted based on the number of awards that is ultimately expected to vest (the so-called ‘true-up’ mechanism).

Classification of share-based payment transactions with a net settlement feature for withholding tax obligations The second amendment addresses the accounting for a particular type of share-based payment scheme. Many jurisdictions require entities to withhold an amount for an employee’s tax obligation associated with share-based payments and transfer the amount (normally in cash) to the taxation authorities. As a result the terms of some schemes require the entity to deduct the number of equity instruments needed to equal the monetary value of the employee’s tax obligation from the number of equity instruments that would otherwise be issued to the employee (referred to as a ‘net settlement’ feature).

The amendment stems from a request for guidance on whether the portion of the share-based payment that is withheld should be classified as cash-settled or equity-settled, where the entire share-based payment would otherwise have been classified as an equity-settled share-based payment transaction.

The amendment adds guidance to NZ IFRS 2 to the effect that a scheme with this type of compulsory net-settlement feature would be classified as equity-settled in its entirety (assuming it would be so classified without the net settlement feature). Where necessary, an entity shall disclose an estimate of the amount that it expects to transfer to the tax authority to settle the employee’s tax obligation.


Accounting for a modification to the terms and conditions of a share-based payment that changes the classification of the transaction from cash-settled to equity-settled The third amendment addresses the accounting for a modification to the terms and conditions of a share-based payment that changes the classification of the transaction from cash-settled to equity-settled. Such situations were not previously addressed by NZ IFRS 2, so the NZASB has amended the Standard so that:

• the share-based payment transaction is measured by reference to the modification-date fair value of the equity instruments granted as a result of the modification;

• the liability recognised in respect of the original cash-settled share-based payment is derecognised upon the modification, and the equity-settled share-based payment is recognised (in equity) to the extent that the services have been rendered up to the modification date; and

• the difference between the carrying amount of the liability as at the modification date and the amount recognised in equity at the same date is recorded in profit or loss immediately.

This guidance also applies to a situation in which the modification changes the vesting period of the share-based payment transaction. The amendments also provide guidance for a grant of equity instruments that has been identified as a replacement for a cancelled cash-settled share-based payment.


Few

Medium



The amendments will only impact entities with share based payment transactions.

Some of the changes could have a fairly significant impact depending on the type of share based payment transactions the entity has entered into.

The changes made to NZ IFRS 2 cover the following matters:• the accounting for the effects of vesting conditions on the

measurement of a cash-settled share-based payment• the classification of share-based payment transactions with a net

settlement feature for withholding tax obligations• the accounting for a modification to the terms and conditions of

a share-based payment that changes the classification of the transaction from cash-settled to equity-settled.


Annual Improvements to NZ IFRSs 2014-2016 Cycle

Summary of Improvements to IFRSs 2014-2016

Standard affected Subject Summary of amendment

NZ IFRS 1 First-time Adoption of New Zealand equivalents to International Financial Reporting Standards

Deletion of short-term exemptions for first-time adopters

A number of short-term exemptions have been deleted because the reliefs provided are no longer available or because they were relevant for reporting periods that have now passed.

NZ IAS 28 Investments in Associates and Joint Ventures

Measuring an associate or joint venture at fair value

• Clarifies that a qualifying entity electing to measure an investment in an associate or joint venture at fair value through profit or loss in accordance with NZ IFRS 9, must make the election separately for each associate or joint venture at initial recognition.

• Clarifies that when a qualifying entity that is not an investment entity, has an interest in an associate or a joint venture that is an investment entity and that elects to retain the fair value measurements used by that investment entity, associate or joint venture’s interests in subsidiaries when applying the equity method, the election must be made separately for each entity, associate or joint venture, at the later of the date on which:

− the investment entity, associate or joint venture is initially recognised

− the associate or joint venture becomes an investment entity; and

− the investment entity, associate or joint venture first becomes a parent.

The Annual Improvements to NZ IFRSs 2014- 2016 Cycle is a collection of amendments to IFRSs resulting from issues that were discussed by the IASB during the project cycle for making annual improvements that began in 2014 and which were included in an Exposure Draft published in November 2015.

The IASB uses the process for making non-urgent, but necessary, minor amendments that will not be included as part of any other

project and the NZASB has formed a similar view, by taking the IASB’s proposed changes and putting them into their standards. By presenting the amendments in a single document rather than as a series of piecemeal changes, the IASB and the NZASB aim to ease the burden of change for all concerned. A summary of the issues addressed is set out in the table that follows.

The amendments to these Standards are effective for annual periods beginning on or after 1 January 2018. The amendment to NZ IAS 28 shall be applied retrospectively with earlier application permitted.





Few

Low

The amendments make changes to relatively narrow areas within NZ IFRSs.

The NZASB’s Annual Improvements process addresses non-urgent, but necessary minor amendments to NZ IFRSs. By their nature then, their commercial significance can be expected to be low and overall the changes are largely uncontroversial.


NZ IFRIC 22 Foreign Currency Transactions and Advance Consideration

Background Although NZ IAS 21 The Effects of Changes in Foreign Exchange Rates sets out requirements about which exchange rate to use when recording a foreign currency transaction on initial recognition in an entity’s functional currency, IFRIC had observed diversity in practice in circumstances in which an entity recognises a non-monetary liability arising from advance consideration. The diversity resulted from the fact that some entities were recognising revenue using the spot exchange rate at the date of the receipt of the advance consideration while others were using the spot exchange rate at the date that revenue was recognised. In carrying out their analysis of the issue, IFRIC noted that the issue was not restricted to just revenue transactions. For example, the same issue arises for transactions such as a sale of property, plant and equipment or the purchase of services when consideration is denominated in a foreign currency and is paid or received in advance.

Action taken NZ IFRIC 22 addresses this issue by clarifying that the date of the transaction for the purpose of determining the exchange rate to use on initial recognition of the related asset, expense or income (or part of it) is the date on which an entity initially recognises the non-monetary asset or non-monetary liability arising from the payment or receipt of advance consideration. If there are multiple payments or receipts in advance, the entity shall determine a date of the transaction for each payment or receipt of advance consideration. Illustrative examples in the Interpretation demonstrate the application of this consensus.

Effective date and transition NZ IFRIC 22 is effective for annual reporting periods beginning on or after 1 January 2018. Earlier application is permitted.

On initial application, entities have the choice of applying the Interpretation either retrospectively or, alternatively, prospectively to all assets, expenses and income in the scope of the Interpretation initially recognised on or after:

i. the beginning of the reporting period in which the entity first applies the Interpretation, or

ii. the beginning of a prior reporting period presented as comparative information in the financial statements of the reporting period in which the entity first applies the Interpretation.




Few

Low

The Interpretation will affect entities recognising a non-monetary asset or non-monetary liability associated with the payment or receipt of advance consideration in a foreign denominated currency.

The commercial impact of the Interpretation is expected to be low for individual affected entities. It will however, reduce diversity in practice between affected entities.


Transfers of Investment Property (Amendments to NZ IAS 40)Introduction The IASB has published Transfers of Investment Property (Amendments to IAS 40) which clarifies that transfers to, or from, investment property are required when, and only when, there is a change in use of property supported by sufficient evidence. The amendments have been endorsed by the NZASB and taken in to NZ IFRS.

The amendments In addition to clarifying the above-noted principle, the amendments also re-characterise the list of circumstances appearing in paragraph 57(a)–(d) as a non-exhaustive list of examples of evidence that a change in use has occurred. The Board has also clarified that a change in management’s intent, by itself, does not provide sufficient evidence that a change in use has occurred. Evidence of a change in use must be observable.

Effective date and transition The amendments are effective for accounting periods on or after 1 January 2018, however early application is permitted. The amendments contain transitional provisions, the default being prospective application, however retrospective application is permitted, provided that it is possible without the use of hindsight.


Low

Few Number of entities affected


Qualifying entities transferring a property to or from ‘investment property’ upon a ‘change in use’.

As the amendment concerns a clarification, the expected commercial impact is low.


In November 2016 the NZASB issued a standard to provide disclosure concessions for Tier 2 for-profit entities applying NZ IFRS 7 Financial Instruments: Disclosures as amended by NZ IFRS 9 Financial Instruments. The disclosure concessions are identical to those issued by the IASB.

More specifically, the amendment adds paragraphs *35A-35N regarding disclosures on credit risk and *B8A-B8J regarding qualitative disclosures on the nature and extent of risks arising from financial instruments.

In addition in FRS-43 Summary Financial Statements, changes were made to align the titles of the financial statements with the wording in NZ IAS 1 and remove wording that was not longer applicable.

Changes were also made to NZ IFRS 4 Insurance Contracts and aligning wording in the standard to what appears in NZ IAS 27 Separate Financial Statements.




Many

Medium

Many entities are affected including Tier 2 for-profit entities applying NZ IFRS 7.

For affected Tier 2 entities, the commercial impact will be reduced disclosures in their annual financial statements. The other changes will affect few entities.

2017 Omnibus Amendments to NZ IFRS



The following amendments are effective for accounting periods beginning on or after 1 January 2019. The amendments are:

• NZ IFRS 16 Leases• Prepayment Features with Negative Compensation (Amendments

to NZ IFRS 9)• 2017 Omnibus Amendments to NZ IFRS• NZ IFRIC 23 – Uncertainty over Income Tax Treatments• Long term Interests in Associates and Joint Ventures (Amendments

to NZ IAS 28)


NZ IFRS 16 Leases

The standard discussed below is effective for accounting periods beginning on or after 1 January 2019.

Background In February 2016 the NZASB approved the issue of NZ IFRS 16 Leases.

The new lease accounting standard provides much-improved transparency and comparability of companies’ lease assets and lease liabilities for investors and other users of general purpose financial statements.

The standard eliminates the classification of leases as either operating leases or finance leases. Instead, there is a single lessee model which requires a lessee to recognise on the statement of financial position assets and liabilities for all leases with a term of more than 12 months, unless the underlying asset is of low value.

Other matters to note about this replacement standard is that it:

• changes the definition of a lease

• sets requirements on how to account for the asset and liability, including complexities such as non-lease elements, variable lease payments and option periods

• provides exemptions for short-term leases and leases of low value assets

• changes the accounting for sale and leaseback arrangements

• requires more detailed disclosures

• a range of transition options exists.

NZ IFRS 16 will not have any effect on the total amount of cash flows reported but it is expected to have an effect on the presentation of cash flows. This is because, applying NZ IAS 17 Leases, cash flows relating to operating leases are presented as cash flows from operating activities while applying NZ IFRS 16 will result in the presentation within financing activities of cash flows relating to the repayment of principal on lease liabilities.


NZ IFRS 16 Leases at a glance

Issues Key points

Who is affected? • Entities that lease assets as a lessee or a lessor

What is the impact on lessees? • All leases will be accounted for ‘on-balance-sheet’, other than short-term and low value asset leases;

• lease expense will typically be ‘front-loaded’

• lease liability will exclude:

− option periods unless exercise is reasonably certain

− contingent payments that are linked to sales/usage and future changes in an index/rate

What’s the impact on lessors? • Only minor changes from NZ IAS 17 as it currently stands

• early application is permitted.

Are there other changes? • A new definition of a lease will result in some arrangements previously classified as leases ceasing to be so, and vice versa

• new guidance on sale and leaseback accounting

• new and different disclosures

When are the changes effective? • Annual periods beginning on or after 1 January 2019

• various transition reliefs

• early application is permitted if NZ IFRS 15 Revenue from Contracts with Customers is applied


Scope exclusions from NZ IFRS 16

Scope on NZ IFRS 16

Scope exclusion Standard to apply

Leases to explore for or use minerals, oil, natural gas and similar non-regenerative resources

None specified. Depending on the circumstances NZ IFRS 6 Exploration for and Evaluation of Mineral Resources or NZ IAS 38 Intangible Assets might apply

Leases of biological assets in scope of NZ IAS 41 held by a lessee NZ IAS 41 Agriculture

Service concession arrangements in scope of NZ IFRIC 12 NZ IFRIC 12 Service Concession Arrangements

Licences of intellectual property granted by a lessor in scope of NZ IFRS 15 NZ IFRS 15 Revenue from Contracts with Customers

Rights held under licensing agreements in scope of NZ IAS 38 for items such as motion picture films, video recordings, plays, manuscripts, patents and copyrights*

NZ IAS 38 Intangible Assets

* for leases of other types of intangible asset a lessee is permitted to apply IFRS 16 but not required to do so

NZ IFRS 16 applies to all leases for both, the lessee and lessor, except for a few scope solutions. These exclusions, some of which are similar to NZ IAS 17’s, are summarised in the table below:

Definition of a lease Because the new lease accounting model brings many more leases ‘on-balance sheet’, the evaluation of whether a contract is (or contains) a lease becomes even more important than itis today.

Under NZ IFRS 16 a lease is defined as: ‘a contract, or part of a contract, that conveys the right to use an asset (the underlying asset) for a period of time in exchange for consideration’. A contract is, or contains, a lease if:

• fulfilment of the contract depends on the use of an identified asset

• the contract conveys the right to control the use of the identified asset for a period of time in exchange for consideration.

In practice, the main impact of NZ IFRS 16’s new definition and supporting guidance is likely to be on contracts that are not in the legal form of a lease but involve the use of a specific asset and may therefore contain a lease.


Lessee accounting Subject to the optional accounting simplifications discussed below, a lessee will be required to recognise its leases on the balance sheet. This involves recognising:

• a ‘right-of-use’ asset

• a lease liability.

The lease liability is initially measured as the present value of future lease payments. For this purpose, lease payments include fixed, non-cancellable payments for lease elements, amounts due under residual value guarantees, certain types of contingent payments and amounts due during optional periods to the extent that extension is ‘reasonably certain’.

In subsequent periods, the right-of-use asset is accounted for similarly to a purchased asset and depreciated or amortised. The lease liability is accounted for similarly to a financial liability using the effective interest method.

Optional accounting simplifications NZ IFRS 16 provides important reliefs or exemptions for:

• short-term leases (a lease is short-term if it has a lease term of 12 months or less at the commencement date)

• low-value asset leases (the assessment of value is based on the absolute value of the leased asset when new and therefore requires judgement. In the Basis for Conclusions which accompanies the Standard, however, the IASB notes that they had in mind leases of assets with a value when new of around US $5,000 or less).

If these exemptions are used, the accounting is similar to operating lease accounting under the current Standard NZ IAS 17 Leases. Lease payments are recognised as an expense on a straight-line basis over the lease term or another systematic basis (if more representative of the pattern of the lessee’s benefit).

Lessor accounting IFRS 16’s requirements for lessor accounting are similar to IAS 17’s. In particular:

• the distinction between finance and operating leases is retained

• the definitions of each type of lease, and the supporting indicators of a finance lease, are substantially the same as NZ IAS 17’s

• the basic accounting mechanics are also similar, but with some different or more explicit guidance in a few areas. These include variable payments; sub-leases; lease modifications; the treatment of initial direct costs; and lessor disclosures.

Sale and leaseback accounting NZ IFRS 16 makes significant changes to sale and leaseback accounting.

If an entity (the seller-lessee) transfers an asset to another entity (the buyer-lessor) and leases that asset back from the buyer-lessor, both the seller-lessee and the buyer-lessor determine whether the transfer qualifies as a sale. This determination is based on the requirements for satisfying a performance obligation in NZ IFRS 15.


'NZ IFRS 16 will requrie lessees to account for leases 'on-balance sheet' by recognising a 'right-of-use-asset' and a 'lease liability.'

Effective date and transition NZ IFRS 16 is effective for annual periods beginning on or after 1 January 2019. Earlier application is permitted but only if an entity applies NZ IFRS 15 Revenue from Contracts with Customers at the same time.

In terms of transition, NZ IFRS 16 provides lessees with a choice between two broad methods:

• full retrospective application – with restatement of comparative information in accordance with NZ IAS 8 Accounting Policies, Changes in Accounting Estimates and Errors

• partial retrospective application – without restating comparatives. Under this approach the cumulative effect of initially applying NZ IFRS 16 is recognised as an adjustment to equity at the date of initial application. If a lessee chooses this method, a number of more specific transition requirements and optional reliefs also apply.


High

Most Number of entities affected


The new standard, will requires lessees to account for leases ‘on-balance sheet’ by recognising a ‘right of use’ asset and a lease liability. It will affect most companies that report under NZ IFRS and are involved in leasing, and will have a substantial impact on the financial statements of lessees of property and high value equipment. For many other businesses, however, exemptions for short-term leases and leases of low value assets will reduce the impact (see below).

In issuing this Standard compromises have been made to reduce the controversy of its introduction, in particular exemptions for short-term and low value asset leases. As a result businesses that lease only assets such as printers and laptops will face only a limited impact. But for businesses that lease ‘big-ticket’ assets, such as property and high-value equipment, this however will be a major change.


Prepayment Features with Negative Compensation (Amendments to NZ IFRS 9)

In October 2017, the IASB published Prepayment Features with Negative Compensation (Amendments to NZ IFRS 9). The amendments allow companies to measure particular prepayable financial assets with negative compensation at amortised cost or at fair value through other comprehensive income – instead of measuring those assets at fair value through profit or loss.

The amendments also include clarifications to the modification or exchange of a financial liability that does not result in derecognition.

After IFRS 9 was issued, the IFRS Interpretations Committee received a request on how to apply the IFRS 9 requirements for recognising and measuring financial instruments to certain debt instruments where the borrower is permitted to prepay the instrument at an amount that could be less than the unpaid principal and interest owed. Such a prepayment feature is often referred to as including potential ‘negative compensation’.

Under the then existing requirements of NZ IFRS 9, a company would have measured a financial asset with negative compensation at fair value through profit or loss as the ‘negative compensation’ feature would have been viewed as introducing potential cash flows that were not solely payments of principal and interest.

However, to improve the usefulness of the information provided, in particular on the instrument’s effective interest rate and expected credit losses, the NZASB issued the amendments so that entities will now be able to measure some prepayable financial assets with negative compensation at amortised cost.

Another issue – Modification or exchange of a financial liability that does not result in derecognition Concurrent with the amendment to NZ IFRS 9 for Prepayment Features with Negative Compensation, the IASB discussed the accounting for a modification or exchange of a financial liability measured at amortised cost that does not result in the derecognition of the financial liability. Specifically, the IASB

considered whether, when applying IFRS 9, an entity should recognise any adjustment to the amortised cost of the financial liability arising from such a modification or exchange in profit or loss at the date of the modification or exchange.

The IASB concluded that no change needed to be made to the Standard itself but has clarified the existing position by adding text to the Basis for Conclusions on IFRS 9 in these amendments.

The change to the accounting for a modification or exchange of a financial liability that does not result in derecognition is effective from 2018 as this text merely clarifies the existing Standard as opposed to amending it.

To summarise, the IASB believes that IFRS 9 provides an adequate basis for an entity to account for modifications and exchanges of financial liabilities that do not result in derecognition and the NZASB has endorsed this. The text which has been added in the amendments highlights that the requirements in NZ IFRS 9 for adjusting the amortised cost of a financial liability when a modification (or exchange) does not result in the derecognition of the financial liability are consistent with the requirements for adjusting the gross carrying amount of a financial asset when a modification does not result in the derecognition of the financial asset. Those requirements state that when contractual cash flows of a financial asset are renegotiated or otherwise modified and the renegotiation or modification does not result in the derecognition of that financial asset, an entity shall recalculate the gross carrying amount of the financial asset and shall recognise a modification gain or loss in profit or loss.

Ironically, the ‘other issue’ clarifying the accounting for a modification or exchange of a financial liability that does not result in derecognition may well result in the most significant change in accounting as modification gains and losses will now be recognised immediately in profit or loss in such situations.


Prepayment Features with Negative Compensation – Amendments to NZ IFRS 9 is effective for annual periods beginning on or after 1 January 2019, with earlier application permitted. However the text which has been added to clarify the accounting for a modification or exchange of a financial liability that does not result in derecognition is effective for annual periods beginning on or after 1 January 2018 (ie the effective date of NZ IFRS 9 itself) as this text merely clarifies the existing Standard rather than amending it.


High

Some Number of entities affected


The amendments will have most relevance to financial institutions who hold these types of financial instruments, although it is possible that some other entities will be affected.

The 'Prepayment Features with Negative Compensation' is an important one as otherwise financial institutions would have had to account for what are essentially debt-type financial assets at fair value as opposed to amortised cost, which may not have provided the most useful information to users.

The 'other issue' included in these amendments could have an even more significant impact and must be applied at the same time NZ IFRS 9 is applied.

'Ironically, the 'other issue' clarifying the accounting for a modification or exchange of a financial liability that does not result in derecognition may well result in the most significant change in accounting as modification gains and losses will now be recognised immediately in profit and loss in such situations.'


2017 Omnibus Amendments to NZ IFRS

The IASB published Investments in Associates and Joint Ventures (Amendments to IAS 28) clarifying that companies account for long-term interests in an associate or joint venture – to which the equity method is not applied – using IFRS 9 Financial Instruments. The NZASB agreed with this and made a similar change. This includes long-term interests that, in substance, form part of the entity’s net investment in an associate or joint venture.

NZ IFRS 9 excludes interests in associates and joint ventures accounted for in accordance with NZ IAS 28. However, some stakeholders expressed an opinion that it was not clear whether that exclusion applies only to interests in associates and joint ventures to which the equity method is applied or whether it applies to all interests in associates and joint ventures.

In the amendments, the point is made that the exclusion in NZ IFRS 9 applies only to interests accounted for using the equity method. Therefore, a company applies NZ IFRS 9 to other interests in associates and joint ventures, including long-term interests to which the equity method is not applied and which, in substance, form part of the net investment in those associates and joint ventures.

The IASB also published an example that illustrates how entities apply the requirements in IFRS 9 and IAS 28 to long- term interests in an associate or joint venture.

Also included in this set of amendments was a change to NZ IFRS 10 Consolidated Financial Statements that clarifies that the ultimate New Zealand parent is the entity that needs to prepare consolidated financial statements, unless the parent is an investment entity.




Some

Medium

The amendments will impact entities that have interests in associates and joint ventures to which the equity method is applied.

The amendment needs to be considered by entity's holdings in debt- type instruments issued by an associate or joint venture will be subject to NZ IFRS 9’s impairment requirements.


NZ IFRIC 23 – Uncertainty over Income Tax Treatments

The IFRS Interpretations Committee (IFRIC) published a new Interpretation IFRIC 23 Uncertainty over Income Tax Treatments specifying how entities should reflect uncertainty in accounting for income taxes and the NZASB approved it for application in New Zealand as well for periods beginning on or after 1 January 2019.

NZ IAS 12 Income Taxes specifies how to account for current and deferred tax but not how to reflect the effects of uncertainty. NZ IFRIC 23 addresses this previous lack of guidance.

NZ IFRIC 23 addresses uncertainty over how tax treatments should affect the accounting for income taxes because IFRIC had observed that there was diversity in practice for various issues on the recognition and measurement of a tax liability or asset in circumstances where there is uncertainty in the application of the tax law in concern. The table below illustrates the main issues that are addressed by the Interpretation.

Main issues addressed by NZ IFRIC 23

Issue Proposal

When and how the effect of uncertainty over income tax treatments should be included in the determination of taxable profit (tax loss), tax bases, unused tax losses, unused tax credits and tax rates

• an entity is required to consider whether it is probable that a taxation authority will accept an uncertain tax treatment

• if it is, the entity would determine taxable profit (tax loss), tax bases, unused tax losses, unused tax credits or tax rates consistently with the tax treatment used or planned to be used in its income tax filings

• if the entity concludes that it is not probable that the taxation authority will accept an uncertain tax treatment, it uses either the most likely amount or the expected value in determining taxable profit (tax loss), tax bases, unused tax losses, unused tax credits and tax rates (depending on which method is expected to better predict the resolution of the uncertainty).

The assumptions that an entity should make about the examination of tax treatments by taxation authorities

• an entity is required to assume that a tax authority will examine amounts it has a right to examine and will have full knowledge of all relevant information when making those examinations.

Changes in facts and circumstances • entities are also required to reassess their judgements and estimates if facts and circumstances change (eg upon reaching a time limit where the taxation authority is no longer able to challenge an entity’s tax treatments) or as a result of new information that affects the judgement or estimate becoming available.

Whether uncertain tax treatments should be considered separately

• entities would be required to use judgement to determine whether each uncertain tax treatment should be considered separately, or whether some uncertain tax treatments should be considered together. In determining the approach to be followed, entities shall consider which approach better predicts the resolution of the uncertainty.


Main issues addressed by NZ IFRIC 23

Issue Proposal

Disclosure • when addressing uncertainty over income tax treatments, entities are required to disclose judgements, assumptions and estimates made in accordance with the normal requirements of NZ IAS 1 Presentation of Financial Statements

• in addition, if an entity concludes it is probable that a taxation authority will accept an uncertain tax treatment, it should consider whether to disclose the potential effect of the uncertainty as a tax-related contingency under NZ IAS 12 at paragraph 88.

Transition • entities shall apply NZ IFRIC 23:

− retrospectively by applying NZ IAS 8, if that is possible without the use of hindsight, or

− retrospectively with the cumulative effect of initially applying the effect of the changes being recognised in the opening balance of retained earnings (or another component of equity) in the period of first application, without adjusting comparative information.




Medium

This Interpretation is applicable to any entity where there is uncertainty over whether a tax treatment will be accepted or disputed by the tax authorities. It includes all tax items (taxable profits and losses, tax bases, unused tax bases, unused tax credits and tax rates), and therefore could have a widespread impact.

If an entity concludes there is uncertainty over the tax treatment of an item, it must account for the uncertain treatment accordingly. It could therefore have a significant impact on some entities depending on the item.

Many


Long term Interests in Associates and Joint Ventures (Amendments to NZ IAS 28)

The NZASB published Investments in Associates and Joint Ventures (Amendments to IAS 28) clarifying that companies account for long-term interests in an associate or joint venture – to which the equity method is not applied – using NZ IFRS 9 Financial Instruments. This includes long-term interests that, in substance, form part of the entity’s net investment in an associate or joint venture.

NZ IFRS 9 excludes interests in associates and joint ventures accounted for in accordance with NZ IAS 28. However, some stakeholders expressed an opinion that it was not clear whether that exclusion applies only to interests in associates and joint ventures to which the equity method is applied or whether it applies to all interests in associates and joint ventures.

In the amendments, the NZASB clarifies that the exclusion in NZ IFRS 9 applies only to interests accounted for using the equity method. Therefore, a company applies NZ IFRS 9 to other interests in associates and joint ventures, including long-term interests to which the equity method is not applied and which, in substance, form part of the net investment in those associates and joint ventures.




Some

High

The amendments will impact entities that have interests in associates and joint ventures to which the equity method is applied

The amendment is significant as it means holdings in debt- type instruments issued by an associate or joint venture will be subject to NZ IFRS 9’s impairment requirements.

'NZ IFRS 9 excludes interests in associates and joint ventures accounted for in accordance with NZ IAS 28.'



The following Standard is effective for accounting periods beginning on or after 1 January 2021:

• NZ IFRS 17 Insurance Contracts


NZ IFRS 17 Insurance Contracts

The Standard discussed below is effective for accounting periods beginning on or after 1 January 2021.

Background After twenty years of development, the IASB has published IFRS 17 Insurance Contracts which the NZASB endorsed. This represents a record in terms of development period, the lengthy completion period reflecting a number of factors including:

• very diverse local practices for insurance accounting

• a huge range of jurisdiction-specific products, tax implications and regulations that had to be captured by a uniform measurement model

• the need for alignment with other Standards that have been recently published by the IASB, such as IFRS 9 ‘Financial Instruments’ and IFRS 15 ‘Revenue from Contracts with Customers’, and to some degree the work of other standard setters.

The new Standard replaces NZ IFRS 4 Insurance Contracts which was published in 2004. NZ IFRS 4 was designed to be an interim Standard and therefore allowed entities issuing insurance contracts to carry on accounting for them using policies that had been developed under their previous local accounting standards. This meant that entities continued to use a multitude of different approaches for accounting for insurance contracts, making it difficult to compare and contrast the financial performance of otherwise similar entities.

Scope NZ IFRS 17 applies to all insurance contracts that an entity issues, reinsurance contracts it holds; and investment contracts with a discretionary participation feature, provided the entity also issues insurance contracts.

NZ IFRS 17 defines an insurance contract as one under which one party (the issuer) accepts significant insurance risk from another party (the policyholder) by agreeing to compensate the policyholder if a specified uncertain future event (the insured event) adversely affects the policyholder.

This definition is similar to that in NZ IFRS 4. In addition, NZ IFRS 17 provides guidance on how to assess the significance of insurance risk based on the possibility of a loss on a present value basis (rather than nominal), and how to evaluate changes in the level of insurance risk.


Measurement NZ IFRS 17 requires an entity that issues insurance contracts to report them on the statement of financial position as the total of:

a the fulfilment cash flows – the current estimates of amounts that the insurer expects to collect from premiums

b pay out for claims, benefits and expenses, including an adjustment for the timing and risk of those cash flows and the contractual service margin – the expected profit for providing future insurance coverage (ie unearned profit).

The measurement of the fulfilment cash flows reflects the current value of any interest rate guarantees and financial options included in the insurance contracts.

To better reflect changes in insurance obligations and risks, NZ IFRS 17 requires an entity to update the fulfilment cash flows at each reporting date, using current estimates that are consistent with relevant market information. This means that insurance obligations will be accounted for using current values instead of historical cost, ending the practice of using data from when a policy was taken out.

Current discount rates are also required to be used. These will reflect the characteristics of the cash flows arising from the insurance contract liabilities, a change from the previous situation where many entities used discount rates based on the expected return on assets backing the insurance contract liabilities.

Revenue is no longer equal to written premiums but to the change in the contract liability covered by the consideration.

Insurance performance NZ IFRS 17 requires an entity to provide information that distinguishes two ways insurers earn profits from insurance contracts:

• the insurance service result, which depicts the profit earned from providing insurance coverage

• the financial result, which captures:

− investment income from managing financial assets

− insurance finance expenses from insurance obligations – the effects of discount rates and other financial variables on the value of insurance obligations.

When applying NZ IFRS 17, changes in the estimates of the expected premiums and payments that relate to future insurance coverage will adjust the expected profit – ie the contractual service margin for a group of insurance contracts will be increased or decreased by the effect of those changes.

The effect of such changes in estimates will then be recognised in profit or loss over the remaining coverage period as the contractual service margin is earned by providing insurance coverage.

Onerous contracts To make differences in profitability among insurance contracts visible, NZ IFRS 17 requires an entity to distinguish groups of contracts expected to be loss-making from other contracts.

Companies should first identify portfolios of insurance contracts that are subject to similar risks and managed together. Once an entity has identified portfolios of contracts, it divides each portfolio into groups considering differences in the expected profitability of the contracts.

If the amounts that the insurer expects to pay out on a contract in the form of claims, benefits and expenses exceed the amounts that the insurer expects to collect from premiums, either at the inception of the contracts or subsequently, the contracts are loss making and the difference will be recognised immediately in profit or loss.

Reinsurance contracts A separate measurement model applies to reinsurance contracts held. Modifications are allowed for qualifying short- term contracts and participating contracts.

'NZ IFRS 17 solves the comparison problems created by NZ IFRS 4 by requiring all insurance contracts to be accounted for in a consistent manner, benefiting both the investors and insurance companies.'


Presentation Statement of financial position The statement of financial position should present in separate captions the assets and liabilities arising under insurance contracts issued and reinsurance contracts held.

In contrast to practices existing under various local GAAPs, entities should adopt a grossed-up presentation where contracts, which are assets, are not netted off against contracts, which are liabilities and vice versa. NZ IFRS 17 does not mandate a layout for the statement of financial position. The reporting entities should follow the general requirements of NZ IAS 1 Presentation of Financial Statements but need to ensure that certain captions are presented as a minimum on the face of the statement.

Statement of financial performance – measurement of revenue and expenses NZ IFRS 17 does not mandate a layout for the statement of financial performance. Reporting entities should follow the principle requirements of NZ IAS 1 and the measurement rules of NZ IFRS 17, which require that revenue and incurred expenses presented in profit or loss exclude any investment components.

Measurement of insurance contract revenue Revenue recognition is an area where NZ IFRS 17 principles represent a significant change from practices previously followed in various local GAAPs. Previously revenue was reported by reference to premium cash received or receivable.

Under NZ IFRS 17, revenue represents the total change in the liability for remaining coverage that relates to coverage and services during the period for which the entity expects to receive consideration.

Supporting materials issued by the IASB Following publication of NZ IFRS 17, the IASB has announced various initiatives to support entities with the adoption of the Standard, including a dedicated implementation support page for NZ IFRS 17 and a webinar on the Standard.

The IASB also plans to establish a Transition Resource Group which will discuss questions from stakeholders about the new accounting requirements.

Disclosure

The objective of the disclosure requirements of NZ IFRS 17 is to disclose information which allows the users of financial statements to assess the effect that contracts within the scope of the Standard have on the entity’s financial position, financial performance and cash flows. Entities should provide quantitative and qualitative information about amounts recognised in the financial statements, significant judgements (and changes thereof), and the nature and extent of risks arising from contracts within the scope of the Standard.

Reporting entities are required to follow NZ IAS 1’s requirements on materiality and aggregation when deciding what aggregation bases are appropriate for disclosure. The type of contract, geographical area or reportable segment as defined in NZ IFRS 8 Operating Segments are all examples suggested but not mandated by the Standard.

Effective date and transition NZ IFRS 17 has an effective date of 1 January 2021 but may be applied earlier provided the entity applies NZ IFRS 9 Financial Instruments and NZ IFRS 15 Revenue from Contracts with Customers at or before the date of initial application of the Standard (and subject to any considerations imposed by local legislation).

In 2016, the IASB made narrow scope amendments to NZ IFRS 4 Insurance Contracts to provide temporary accounting solutions for the practical challenges of implementing NZ IFRS 9 before NZ IFRS 17.





Some

High

NZ IFRS 17 is a Standard about insurance contracts, not a Standard for the insurance industry. While insurance companies will be most affected, its effect will also be felt beyond the entities authorised to carry out regulated (re) insurance activities in a jurisdiction.

NZ IFRS 17 fundamentally changes the accounting for insurance contracts. It will have a substantial impact on the financial statements of those with insurance contracts. Presently there is a huge diversity in the way insurance contracts are accounted for, NZ IFRS 17 is set to make consistent these accounting practices and will transform data, people, technology solutions and investor relations. Implementation costs are likely to be high as entities get to grips with the new Standard.


No effective date

The following amended Standard and Practice Statement have both been postponed indefinitely:

• Sale or Contribution of Assets between an Investor and its Associate or Joint Venture (Amendments to NZ IFRS 10 and NZ IAS 28)

• Practice Statement 2 – Making material judgements


Sale or Contribution of Assets between an Investor and its Associate or Joint Venture (Amendments to NZ IFRS 10 and NZ IAS 28)

The Amendments to NZ IFRS 10 and NZ IAS 28 address an acknowledged inconsistency between NZ IFRS 10 Consolidated Financial Statements and NZ IAS 28 (2011) Investments in Associates. This relates to accounting for transactions in which a parent entity loses control of a subsidiary by contributing it to an associate or joint venture.

The inconsistency stemmed originally from a conflict between the requirements of NZ IAS 27 Consolidated and Separate Financial Statements (Revised 2008) and NZ SIC-13 Jointly Controlled Entities – Non-Monetary Contributions by Venturers. While NZ IAS 27 required the full gain or loss to be recognised on the loss of control of a subsidiary, NZ SIC-13 required a partial gain or loss recognition in transactions between an investor and its associate or joint venture. Although NZ IFRS 10 supersedes NZ IAS 27, and NZ IAS 28 (2011) supersedes both NZ IAS 28 and NZ SIC-13, the conflict remained.

The amendments now alter NZ IFRS 10 so that:

• the current requirements for the partial gain or loss recognition for transactions between an investor and its associate or joint venture only apply to the gain or loss resulting from the sale or contribution of assets that do not constitute a business, as defined in NZ IFRS 3

• the gain or loss from the sale or contribution of assets that constitute a business between an investor and its associate or joint venture is recognised in full.

Corresponding amendments have been made to NZ IAS 28 (2011) to reflect these changes. In addition NZ IAS 28 (2011) has been amended to clarify that when determining whether assets that are sold or contributed, an entity shall consider whether the sale or contribution of those assets is part of multiple arrangements that should be accounted for as a single transaction.


Recent development The 2014 amendments were due to become effective for accounting periods beginning on or after 1 January 2016. However, a number of questions were raised over the application of the Amendments such as how the transfer of assets would be recognised if the investor receives both assets and an equity interest, and how other requirements of NZ IAS 28 interact with the changes made to NZ IFRS 10. In deliberating these issues, the IASB decided that it would be better to address them as part of the research project on the equity method rather than make changes now.

The IASB in 2015 issued an Exposure Draft ‘Effective Date of Amendments to IFRS 10 and IAS 28’ but it has subsequently proposed referring this amendment indefinitely. However, reporting entities can adapt to this guidance now if they wish to.




Few

Medium

The scope of the amendments are narrow in nature.

The Amendments offer a pragmatic solution to a well-known conflict between NZ IFRS 10 and NZ IAS 28.

'The Amendments to NZ IFRS 10 and NZ IAS 28 address an acknowledged inconsistency between NZ IFRS 10 'Consolidated Financial Statements' and IAS 28 (2011) 'Investments in Associates'. They can still be applied even though the effective date of the amendments has been deferred indefinitely.'


Practice Statement 2 – Making material judgements

In September 2017, the IASB published its second IFRS Practice Statement - Making Materiality Judgements (the ‘Practice Statement’). The Practice Statement encourages entities to apply judgement so that financial statements focus on the information that is useful to investors rather than trying to comply with an IFRS ‘checklist’. This non-authoritative guidance, which can be applied immediately, marks the next step in the IASB’s ongoing ‘Disclosure Initiative’.

The concept of materiality is important in the preparation of financial statements, because it helps companies determine which information to include or exclude from their reports. he ‘Conceptual Framework for Financial Reporting’ discusses materiality as follows:

• Information is material if omitting it or misstating it could influence decisions that users make on the basis of financial information about a specific reporting entity. In other words, materiality is an entity-specific aspect of relevance based on the nature or magnitude, or both, of the items to which the information relates in the context of an individual entity’s financial report. Consequently, the Board cannot specify. A uniform quantitative threshold for materiality or predetermine what could be material in a particular situation.

However, management is often faced with uncertainty in applying that concept. Such uncertainty is encountered when making decisions about recognition and measurement but most of all when deciding what information to disclose in the notes and how to present that information.

This uncertainty has led to some entities using the disclosure requirements in IFRS Standards as a checklist rather than judging which information would be most useful to investors and other stakeholders.

In publishing the Practice Statement, the IASB is providing support to companies when making materiality judgements and in doing so hopes to encourage behavioural change.

The Practice Statement gathers all the materiality requirements in IFRS Standards and adds practical guidance and examples entities may find helpful in deciding whether information is material.

The Practice Statement sets out a four-step process to making decisions on materiality:

Issue Proposal

Step 1 – Identify • Identify information that has the potential to be material.

Step 2 – Assess • Assess whether the information identified in Step 1 is, in fact, material.

Step 3 – Organise • Organise the information within the draft financial statements in a way that communicates the information clearly and concisely to primary users.

Step 4 – Review • Review the draft financial statements to determine whether all material information has been identified and materiality considered from a wide perspective and in aggregate, on the basis of the complete set of financial statements.

Four-step process to making decisions on materiality


The Practice Statement also gives guidance on specific topics such as:

• prior-period information

• errors

• information about covenants

• materiality judgements for interim reporting.

The Practice Statement is not a Standard and its application is not mandatory or required in order to state compliance with IFRS. It does not change existing requirements or introduce new ones. Instead, it aims to provide guidance to assist management in applying the concept of materiality when preparing their financial statements. The guidance in the Practice Statement can be applied from its date of publication which was 14 September 2017.


Medium

Many Number of entities affected


Many companies face uncertainty in applying the concept of materiality in the preparation of financial statements so this Practice Statement will be useful to the majority of companies.

The Practice Statement provides principle based guidance which, if applied, may or may not impact the materiality decision. The Practice Statement provides non-mandatory guidance, which does not have the same authority as a Standard approved by the NZASB.

'The Practice Statement encourages entities to apply judgement so that financial statements focus on the information that is useful to investors rather than trying to comply with an IFRS 'checklist'.


© 2017 Grant Thornton New Zealand Ltd. All rights reserved.‘Grant Thornton’ refers to the brand under which the Grant Thornton member firms provide assurance, tax and advisory services to their clients and/or refers to one or more member firms, as the context requires. Grant Thornton International Ltd (GTIL) and the member firms are not a worldwide partnership. GTIL and each member firm is a separate legal entity. Services are delivered by the member firms. GTIL does not provide services to clients. GTIL and its member firms are not agents of, and do not obligate, one another and are not liable for one another’s acts or omissions.

grantthornton.co.nz

© 2018 Grant Thornton New Zealand Ltd. All rights reserved.Grant Thornton New Zealand Ltd is a member firm of Grant Thornton International Ltd (GTIL). GTIL and the member firms are not a worldwide partnership. Services are delivered by the member firms. GTIL and its member firms are not agents of, and do not obligate, one another and are not liable for one another’s acts or omissions. Please see www.grantthornton.co.nz for further details. This report is general in nature and its brevity could lead to misrepresentation. No responsibility can be accepted for those who act on its content without first consulting us and obtaining specific advice.

www.grantthornton.co.nz

Documents

Navigating the changes to New Zealand Equivalents to … · 2018-04-16 · Overview This publication is designed to give a high-level awareness of recent changes to New Zealand equivalents